Marie Assa'ad-Faltas v. Jean Toal, No. 13-1489 (4th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-1489 MARIE THERESE ASSA AD-FALTAS, MD, MPH, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. JEAN TOAL, as administrative head of all SC's state courts and all their subordinates who intend to injure Plaintiff, all solely officially and solely for injunctive relief; DANIEL EDWARD SHEAROUSE, as Clerk of SC's Supreme Court and all their subordinates who intend to injure Plaintiff, all solely officially and solely for injunctive relief; MARK KEEL, as Chief of SC's State Law Enforcement Division (SLED) and all their subordinates who intend to injure Plaintiff, all solely officially and solely for injunctive relief; LEROY SMITH, as Head of SC's Department of Public Safety and all their subordinates who intend to injure Plaintiff, all solely officially and solely for injunctive relief; LEON LOTT, as Sheriff of Richland County SC and warden of the Alvin S Glenn Detention Center (ASGDC) and all their subordinates who intend to injure Plaintiff, all solely officially and solely for injunctive relief; JAMES R. BARBER, III, as SC's Fifth Judicial Circuit's Administrative Judge and all their subordinates who intend to injure Plaintiff, all solely officially and solely for injunctive relief; DANIEL JOHNSON, as SC's Fifth Judicial Circuit's Solicitor and all their subordinates who intend to injure Plaintiff, all solely officially and solely for injunctive relief; JEANETTE MCBRIDE, as Richland County's Clerk of Court and all their subordinates who intend to injure Plaintiff, all solely officially and solely for injunctive relief; ROSLYNN FRIERSON, as Director of SC's Office of Court Administration and all their subordinates who intend to injure Plaintiff, all solely officially and solely for injunctive relief; STEVEN BENJAMIN, as Mayor and all members of the City of Columbia (the City) Council and all their subordinates who intend to injure Plaintiff, all solely officially and solely for injunctive relief; STEVE GANTT, manager for the City and all their subordinates who intend to injure Plaintiff, all solely officially and solely for injunctive relief; DANA TURNER, falsely bearing a title of Chief Administrative Judge of the City's Municipal Court (CMC) and all their subordinates who intend to injure Plaintiff, all solely officially and solely for injunctive relief; RANDY SCOTT, falsely bearing a title of the City's Chief of Police and all their subordinates who intend to injure Plaintiff, all solely officially and solely for injunctive relief; MARION HANNA, falsely bearing the title of CMC judge and all their subordinates who intend to injure Plaintiff, all solely officially and solely for injunctive relief; KEN GAINES, supposed attorneys for the city and all their subordinates who intend to injure Plaintiff, all solely officially and solely for injunctive relief; ROBERT G. COOPER, supposed attorneys for the city and all their subordinates who intend to injure Plaintiff, all solely officially and solely for injunctive relief; DANA MARIE THYE, supposed attorneys for the city and all their subordinates who intend to injure Plaintiff, all solely officially and solely for injunctive relief; DAVID A. FERNANDEZ, supposed attorneys for the city and all their subordinates who intend to injure Plaintiff, all solely officially and solely for injunctive relief, Defendants Appellees. No. 13-1524 MARIE THERESE ASSA AD-FALTAS, MD, MPH, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. JEAN TOAL, as administrative head of all SC's state courts and all their subordinates who intend to injure Plaintiff, all solely officially and solely for injunctive relief; DANIEL EDWARD SHEAROUSE, as Clerk of SC's Supreme Court and all their subordinates who intend to injure Plaintiff, all solely officially and solely for injunctive relief; MARK KEEL, as Chief of SC's State Law Enforcement Division (SLED) and all their subordinates who intend to injure Plaintiff, all solely officially and solely for injunctive relief; 2 LEROY SMITH, as Head of SC's Department of Public Safety and all their subordinates who intend to injure Plaintiff, all solely officially and solely for injunctive relief; LEON LOTT, as Sheriff of Richland County SC and warden of the Alvin S Glenn Detention Center (ASGDC) and all their subordinates who intend to injure Plaintiff, all solely officially and solely for injunctive relief; JAMES R. BARBER, III, as SC's Fifth Judicial Circuit's Administrative Judge and all their subordinates who intend to injure Plaintiff, all solely officially and solely for injunctive relief; DANIEL JOHNSON, as SC's Fifth Judicial Circuit's Solicitor and all their subordinates who intend to injure Plaintiff, all solely officially and solely for injunctive relief; JEANETTE MCBRIDE, as Richland County's Clerk of Court and all their subordinates who intend to injure Plaintiff, all solely officially and solely for injunctive relief; ROSLYNN FRIERSON, as Director of SC's Office of Court Administration and all their subordinates who intend to injure Plaintiff, all solely officially and solely for injunctive relief; STEVEN BENJAMIN, as Mayor and all members of the City of Columbia (the City) Council and all their subordinates who intend to injure Plaintiff, all solely officially and solely for injunctive relief; STEVE GANTT, manager for the City and all their subordinates who intend to injure Plaintiff, all solely officially and solely for injunctive relief; DANA TURNER, falsely bearing a title of Chief Administrative Judge of the City's Municipal Court (CMC) and all their subordinates who intend to injure Plaintiff, all solely officially and solely for injunctive relief; RANDY SCOTT, falsely bearing a title of the City's Chief of Police and all their subordinates who intend to injure Plaintiff, all solely officially and solely for injunctive relief; MARION HANNA, falsely bearing the title of CMC judge and all their subordinates who intend to injure Plaintiff, all solely officially and solely for injunctive relief; KEN GAINES, supposed attorneys for the city and all their subordinates who intend to injure Plaintiff, all solely officially and solely for injunctive relief; ROBERT G. COOPER, supposed attorneys for the city and all their subordinates who intend to injure Plaintiff, all solely officially and solely for injunctive relief; DANA MARIE THYE, supposed attorneys for the city and all their subordinates who intend to injure Plaintiff, all solely officially and solely for injunctive relief; DAVID A. FERNANDEZ, supposed attorneys for the city and all their subordinates who intend to injure Plaintiff, all solely officially and solely for injunctive relief, 3 Defendants Appellees. Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Terry L. Wooten, Chief District Judge. (3:12-cv-02991-TLW) Submitted: November 19, 2013 Before WYNN and Circuit Judge. FLOYD, Decided: November 21, 2013 Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior No. 13-1489 dismissed; No. 13-1524 affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Marie Therese Assa ad-Faltas, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 4 PER CURIAM: In appeals the these consolidated district court s appeals, order Marie denying Assa ad-Faltas her motion for a temporary restraining order, as well as its order dismissing her claims after a 28 U.S.C. ยง 1915 (2006) review. We dismiss in Appeal No. 13-1489, and affirm in Appeal No. 13-1524. To the extent that Assa ad-Faltas appeals the denial of her motion for a temporary restraining order in Appeal No. 13-1489, such a denial is not immediately appealable and must be dismissed as interlocutory. See Virginia v. Tenneco, Inc., 538 F.2d 1026, 1029-30 (4th Cir. 1976). To the extent that Assa ad-Faltas challenges the district court s order dismissing her claims against Defendants in Appeal No. 13-1524, we have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court s amended judgment. Assa ad-Faltas v. Toal, No. 3:12-cv-02991-TLW (D.S.C. Apr. 16, 2013). Based on the foregoing, we dismiss Appeal No. 13-1489, and affirm in Appeal No. 13-1524. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. No. 13-1489, DISMISSED; No. 13-1524, AFFIRMED 5
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
